Talk:Alliance battleship (788 UC era)
From Gineipaedia, the Legend of Galactic Heroes wiki
FPA Forever (Talk | contribs) (→Praise) |
(→Praise) |
||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
::Maybe 'Early War' and 'Late War' would work? [[User:FPA Forever|FPA Forever]] | ::Maybe 'Early War' and 'Late War' would work? [[User:FPA Forever|FPA Forever]] | ||
| + | |||
| + | :::There are still the 2nd Tiamat ones (745 UC era). Plus the ''Hameln II'' which seems to be an intermediate design between the 745 UC destroyers and the 796 UC ones. [[Special:Contributions/122.106.0.244|122.106.0.244]] 14:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 14:51, 8 February 2012
Misc
Very difficult to find pics for the battleship that are satisfactory / aren't more appropriate for Ulysses. Vympel 04:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Also, just noticed - where are the additional three fighters, according to the data book? Vympel 08:29, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- Don't know. It doesn't say. It just says the capacity. If I had to personally speculate, I'd say stacked on top of one of those rows of 3. But then we never see details of fighter operations from the battleships. We only see Katerose in episode 102 launch and then fly between the ventral antenna of a battleship. Iracundus 08:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
The missile launch in episode 71 I always thought was from Diomedes not the standard battleship next to it. Looking closely the contrails seem to emerge from the side of the Diomedes. Iracundus 08:45, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- If you have a good media player like VLC or MPC, you can run it frame by frame, its clear the missiles couldn't be coming from anywhere else but the battleship (also this is another example of cold launch):- http://img844.imageshack.us/img844/3527/preframe.jpg; http://img689.imageshack.us/img689/3339/launchframe0.jpg. Vympel 11:03, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- Also I messed up, its Episode 71, whoops.Vympel 11:03, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, never saw the projectiles before launch. Somehow the idea of a cold launch didn't cross my mind. Iracundus 11:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Praise
Just wanted to say, all of these articles like this are fantastic! Great job! The only issues i notice off-hand are the italics in the titles, which i can correct later (either by overriding the ship infobox italics or by creating a new infobox especially for ship classes/types), and also the use of 'Modern' — seems inconsistent with our narrative perspective, which is that of a future observer. ♥ kine @ 00:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- Forgot about that - I really need to go through all the ship articles and make sure the past tense is used consistently, sometimes I forget. What to replace it with ... maybe nothing? Maybe just have it "Alliance battleship" (or whatever) whilst the previous eras speak for themselves ... Vympel 05:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- We could either get rid of the modern era bit entirely or we could do something like 796 UC era Iracundus 09:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- Maybe 'Early War' and 'Late War' would work? FPA Forever
- There are still the 2nd Tiamat ones (745 UC era). Plus the Hameln II which seems to be an intermediate design between the 745 UC destroyers and the 796 UC ones. 122.106.0.244 14:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
